The theory of evolution didn't begin with Darwin and Wallace. Before there was Darwianism, there was Lamarkian evolution. (See wikipedia if you don't know the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism )

Capitalism aside, humans individuals and societies seem to work more by Lamarkian means, Which do you prefer?

If you want to say social evolution is Lamarkian you can. Although I'd continue to insist that at times it is Darwinian. Even the Evolution Psychologists--damn, I don't know what to say. I just want to reiterate that EPs are idiots. Please pretend that i said something really witty. Thank you.

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

i follow the Jurassic Park therory: animals can breed/spawn themselves.

case/point: jurassic park 2 and 3 inexplicably have dinosaurs that were not bred in the first one (pterydactyls/little critters/etc). clearly they evolved over a course of a few short years, thus creating the jurassic park theory.

jkisha wrote:Why do you want us to select between a discredited theory and the accepted theory? It's like asking which is more suited to humans, creationism or evolution.

JK

Darwin's theory came out of a Capitalist mindset. And it was all those Capitalists that said Socialism was discredited, untill capitalism fell apart. The Central Dopgma of DNA of the workers taking orders from the boss who eventual evolved the golden parachutes to avoid extinction. Now we are learning that eniviroment can alter DNA. Lamarkism, learn and grow. With PRC technology we can do it. That's Change we need!.

klondike_bar wrote:case/point: jurassic park 2 and 3 inexplicably have dinosaurs that were not bred in the first one (pterydactyls/little critters/etc). clearly they evolved over a course of a few short years, thus creating the jurassic park theory.

Not to correct you, but just to explain the Jurassic park phenomenon.
The second jurassic park movie is on a different island - it's essentially the park's testing facility. The pterodactyls were supposed to be in the first movie (they're in the book) but the people who made the movie were worried about special effects. Either way, many of the dinosaurs weren't from the Jurassic era at all.

And as far as evolution, I think our culture is killing it. (For humans at least) The fittest has less and less to do with survival.

klondike_bar wrote:case/point: jurassic park 2 and 3 inexplicably have dinosaurs that were not bred in the first one (pterydactyls/little critters/etc). clearly they evolved over a course of a few short years, thus creating the jurassic park theory.

Not to correct you, but just to explain the Jurassic park phenomenon.The second jurassic park movie is on a different island - it's essentially the park's testing facility. The pterodactyls were supposed to be in the first movie (they're in the book) but the people who made the movie were worried about special effects. Either way, many of the dinosaurs weren't from the Jurassic era at all.

And as far as evolution, I think our culture is killing it. (For humans at least) The fittest has less and less to do with survival.

jkisha wrote:Why do you want us to select between a discredited theory and the accepted theory? It's like asking which is more suited to humans, creationism or evolution.

JK

Darwin's theory came out of a Capitalist mindset. And it was all those Capitalists that said Socialism was discredited, untill capitalism fell apart. The Central Dopgma of DNA of the workers taking orders from the boss who eventual evolved the golden parachutes to avoid extinction. Now we are learning that eniviroment can alter DNA. Lamarkism, learn and grow. With PRC technology we can do it. That's Change we need!.

My question: Which is dumber, the Christian refutation of Darwin or the Socialist refutation of same?

Social Darwinism is capitalistic, but Charles' and Alfred's work is something else.

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

jkisha wrote:Why do you want us to select between a discredited theory and the accepted theory? It's like asking which is more suited to humans, creationism or evolution.

JK

Darwin's theory came out of a Capitalist mindset. And it was all those Capitalists that said Socialism was discredited, untill capitalism fell apart. The Central Dopgma of DNA of the workers taking orders from the boss who eventual evolved the golden parachutes to avoid extinction. Now we are learning that eniviroment can alter DNA. Lamarkism, learn and grow. With PRC technology we can do it. That's Change we need!.

My question: Which is dumber, the Christian refutation of Darwin or the Socialist refutation of same?

Social Darwinism is capitalistic, but Charles' and Alfred's work is something else.

I would say the Christians believing in dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam. This runs contrary to the evidence. However the Capitalistic assumption, often called the Central Dogma of Biology for a reason is an unproven faith that DNA mutations are purely random events and is insensitive to the enviroment. We seen some genes are more mutable than others and the somatic genes can mutate under enviromental pressure, etc. Only Oscam's razor requires the former so that a purely Darwin's theory would be the only mechanism in action making it easier to explain to the masses of first year Bio students. And that doesn't explain much of the creatively in the genetic code. Something only one order up on complexity like transposition and recombination as demonstrated in Dr. Barbara McCormick's Noble prize study of corn took twenty years of research to see. And they only gave her the prize because it was important as fe could follow what she was doing.

No, not at all. In fact, maybe the opposite. Consider the case of the trust fund, silver spoon baby. (Shrub, as a course example) These creatures are coddled, and given breaks pretty much unimaginable to the rest of society.

Drop one of these into some "real" survival situation where they are not able to buy their way out, and we'd see who is 'fittest' and who is long pork.

btw, this is the upside of the collapse of our civilization, and I look forward to this aspect. Mmm. Longpork!

"No one is innocent, citizen. We are merely here to determine the level of your guilt."
- Judge Dredd

Ugly Dougly wrote:How do you think giraffes got their long necks? Obviously from stretching to eat high trees! Good day, sir!

The long neck might not be the result of stretching, but, perhaps, the result of "necking". Research has shown that giraffes are not always stretching to reach the top of the trees, but will eat from bushs close to the gound.

[quote]Tallest of the mammals is the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) whose extremely long neck is a classic example of an evolutionary trait under selection.The long neck is a derived characteristic since giraffes evolved from ancestors that lacked this trait.A few hypotheses were proposed to explain the evolution of the neck which give insight on how the giraffe got its neck.Darwin speculated on the idea that natural selection chooses animals that are best able to feed on the highest treetops, where food is most abundant and competition minimal (Gould, 1996).This interspecific competition could provide a selection pressure that elongated the neck.Lamarck, through his principle of â€œuse and disuseâ€

I see it as the same as the issues between macro physics and quantum physics. Darwinian evolution addresses changes to populations over long periods of time. I see Lamarckian evolution as addressing immediate, short term changes to individuals and their direct offspring; things like environmental triggers turning on/off genes and suites of traits. I predict that as we learn more about genetics we will be better able to observe things like the effects of social stresses on mothers before pregnancy and how that sets up her future offspring to be genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, attitudes and even physiological responses to the environment. Darwin didn't know what genes were, he only described the effects of diversity and selection. Lamarck could only explain short term changes as the organism "willing" itself to change to cope with the environment and then passing that change on to its offspring. I know I am in a very small minority, but I think we will see Lamarck vindicated in the next 10 to 15 years.

yumba junkie wrote:I see it as the same as the issues between macro physics and quantum physics. Darwinian evolution addresses changes to populations over long periods of time. I see Lamarckian evolution as addressing immediate, short term changes to individuals and their direct offspring; things like environmental triggers turning on/off genes and suites of traits.

That's not evolution at all, that's just organisms doing what they do. Gene regulation is entirely orthogonal to evolution.

I predict that as we learn more about genetics we will be better able to observe things like the effects of social stresses on mothers before pregnancy and how that sets up her future offspring to be genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, attitudes and even physiological responses to the environment.

What you are suggesting is very nearly equivalent to something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Again, not evolution.

Darwin didn't know what genes were, he only described the effects of diversity and selection. Lamarck could only explain short term changes as the organism "willing" itself to change to cope with the environment and then passing that change on to its offspring. I know I am in a very small minority, but I think we will see Lamarck vindicated in the next 10 to 15 years.

Recent studies suggest that certain kinds of gene expression that are affected by environmental factors do, indeed, influence the genes passed on to the offspring. This makes some people say that Lamarck was right, although if so he was right only in a very fuzzy fashion.

Other recent evidence suggests that human evolution has increased its rate in the relatively recent past. There is no evidence that we have reached a dead end.

Further, since we are rapidly gaining the ability to understand and manipulate our own genome, it seems likely that "natural" methods of selection will soon be overwhelmed by human directed methods.

It's worth considering that "survival of the fittest" is always relative to an environment, and for humans it can be interpreted as "fit to live in human society".

dr.placebo wrote:Recent studies suggest that certain kinds of gene expression that are affected by environmental factors do, indeed, influence the genes passed on to the offspring. This makes some people say that Lamarck was right, although if so he was right only in a very fuzzy fashion.

I would say that it means that he wasn't 100% wrong, that there are a few limited cases where he was kind of right. However, by far the predominant reason for inherited traits boils down to passing genes in the usual apparently random way.

It's not that biologists hate Lamarck or anything, it's just that Darwinian evolution has a lot more utility.

Other recent evidence suggests that human evolution has increased its rate in the relatively recent past. There is no evidence that we have reached a dead end.

Perhaps not surprising, given the enormous population and diversity of humanity these days.

It's worth considering that "survival of the fittest" is always relative to an environment, and for humans it can be interpreted as "fit to live in human society".

I'd call it 'able to reproduce in human society'. Josef Fritzl wasn't really fit to live in human society, and yet he sired two generations of offspring